About your Search

20110701
20110731
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5
the president to wage war. we do so at a time when the united states is so engaged in wars in afghanistan and iraq and our national debt exceeds $14 trillion. in light of these circumstances and the lack of united states vital interests in in libya, i do not believe we should be intervening in a civil war there. american combat forces are so efficient at certain types of operations and are over the horizon technology is so potent that the use of the military instrument to right wrongs exists as a tremendous temptation for presidents. american intervention in libya did not come as a result of a disciplined assessment of our vital interests or an authorization debate in the congress. given all that is at stake in pakistan, afghanistan, iran, saudi arabia, egypt, syria, yemen and elsewhere in the islamic world, a rational strategic assessment would not devote sizable american military and economic resources to a civil war in libya. it is an expensive diversion that leaves the united states and our european allies with fewer assets to respond to other contingencies. under the constitution, it
spending at all levels, including the military, as we bring our troops home from afghanistan. and, yes, it needs to look at the money that we spend through our tax code -- and we've talked about this over and over again. we need to have a balanced approach, a credible approach to manage our debt. and that should be our first option. but under no circumstances should we allow america to default on its obligations, causing harm to every american family. i urge-colleagues to put the national -- i urge my colleagues to put the national interests first, to take off the table the default on our debt, take that off the table, let's put the national interest first, work together to bring about a credible plan to manage our national debt. and with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor and suggest the an -- before i do that, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
the following. you could eliminate all the bush/obama tax cuts. you could pull out of iraq, afghanistan and southwest asia tomorrow. you could end up eliminating all congressional earmarks and you could eliminate all foreign aid which people think is a big number but it's not, that's about 15 to 20% of the problem. the government has grown too big, promised too much, waited too long to restructure. yes, we're going to have to have more revenues as compared to historical levels but we need to go about it in an intelligent way that will make our system fairer, more equitable, more comparative and it will promote job growth and promote innovation. last i think this, on the comeback america initiative, preemptive framework, there's an additional $500 billion for critical investments over the next two years in order to help the economic recovery and to deal with unemployment. nonetheless, the net spending reductions over the next 10 years are over 3 trillion. so, yes, we need to do some things to make sure we recover and get unemployment down but if we don't end up putting our finances in or
currently we have soldiers fighting in afghanistan and people don't seem to forget that. i would not say any prime minister is not fighting for the right people. continues to fight for the right people. >> how would any of those prime ministers ask as editor or chief executive how often or would they ever ask you not to publish a story? would they ask you to spike a story? would that happen? >> i can't remember an occasion of prime minister asked that. >> politicians generally do that? >> no. i can remember many occasions when a cabinet minister or politician or prime minister was very unhappy with stories we were running and -- not that they would ask us not to. >> if they had you would have been interested anyway? >> if the story was true and accurate, no reason for a prime minister -- that is why we have a free press. >> final question. still a feeling that in some way you had a close relationship with the prime minister. the allegation seems to be is no different -- the benefit of what people need to see. you have a close relationship with the prime minister. that was helpful to him and
of the money that we are going to save by not continuing operations and iraq and afghanistan for the next ten years at their current level. that that was also in the rhine and budget. as it turns out, the rise in budget receives $2.2 trillion in savings without using that accounting gimmick triet compared to the president's 2011 number, the ryan budget saves $6.2 trillion without using that accounting gimmick. with the ryan budget does -- if you look through the various charts and pages of it -- it also has various comparisons, including pretty much the obligatory comparison to what is called the current law budget that cbo scores, and in that he compared because that's what cbo does the oco cost for the overseas contingency operation cost, but he did not utilize that in order to achieve the savings in his budget. so i had made the same mistakes others had in assuming what we were told was correct. paul ryan made it clear no, that wasn't correct. when we criticized the bill that the majority leader has brought up for use in over a trillion dollars in savings from that oco account, i think we
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5